Supreme Court Upholds Guidelines on Section 498A Misuse

The Supreme Court of India, in the 2025 case of Shivangi Bansal vs Sahib Bansal, reaffirmed guidelines set by the Allahabad High Court to curb misuse of Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code. These guidelines include a two-month ‘cooling period’ before any coercive action and referral of complaints to a Family Welfare Committee (FWC). The ruling has stirred debate over victims’ timely access to justice and the autonomy of criminal justice agencies.

Background

Section 498A was enacted to address cruelty against women by husbands or their families. It aims to protect women from harassment and abuse in matrimonial settings. However, courts have noted increasing misuse of this provision to file false complaints and cause wrongful arrests.

Judicial Safeguards Against Misuse

The Supreme Court has introduced multiple safeguards. In Lalita Kumari, it mandated preliminary inquiry before registering FIRs in matrimonial disputes. The 2008 amendment to the Code of Criminal Procedure added the ‘principle of necessity’ for arrests. The Arnesh Kumar judgment (2014) introduced a checklist and notice requirements before arrest. Later, Satender Kumar Antil (2022) strengthened bail protections for wrongful arrests.

Impact on Arrests and Crime Data

Data from the National Crime Record Bureau shows Section 498A offences rose from 113,403 in 2015 to 140,019 in 2022. Arrests declined from 187,067 to 145,095 during the same period. This indicates judicial and legislative measures helped reduce arbitrary arrests while balancing victims’ rights.

Controversy Over the ‘Cooling Period’ and FWCs

The Allahabad High Court’s introduction of a two-month ‘cooling period’ and referral to FWCs aims to prevent hasty arrests and encourage mediation. However, critics argue this delays justice for victims and undermines criminal justice autonomy. Similar directions in Rajesh Sharma (2017) were overturned by the Supreme Court in 2018 after public backlash.

Judicial Experimentalism

The introduction of FWCs and cooling periods is seen as judicial overreach. These steps are not backed by statute and interfere with police and magistrate functions. Past experience shows such experimental directions face societal resistance and risk rollback.

Need for Reconsideration

Given existing checks against misuse, the recent ruling may unnecessarily hinder victims’ access to justice. It is important for the Supreme Court to reassess the balance between protecting the innocent and ensuring timely redressal for genuine complaints.